Red Baron

[Signals]

Hi All,

has anyone out there kept close tabs on the mystery on who shot down the Red Baron. I have read and heard so many different conflicting stories over the years, and although we may never know, who does the latest evidence suggest give the credit to. I have read through the eye witness accounts that Australian Charles Bean, put together at the time, and I'm left a little bemused as to how Brown was given the credit? The Australians actually thought, that if a pilot was given the credit, it must have been May firing a pistol back over his shoulder as there was never three aircraft involved in the final phase of the battle when he was shot down.

DB.

[fitzee]

I suggest this book

http://www.amazon.com/RED-BARONS-LAST-FLIG...d/dp/1898697752

Fitzee

[Signals]

Hi Fitzee,

yes have this book, they give the MOST LIKELY chap as Cedric Popkin, and Australian. So is this basically the latest as i have not kept up with the developments? It certainly does not give Brown the credit. Is there ay views out there that still think it was Brown?

DB

[David B]

DB,

After reading that book there is no way it could have been Brown

David B

[Auimfo]

I think all the good money is still on Popkin although an outside roughy might be the fluke shot from an unknown infantryman's rifle.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[2ndCMR]

Darren has kindly created this thread especially for he and I to have a little joust it seems, so how could I refuse?!

First of all Darren, do you have a copy of "Von Richthofen and the 'Flying Circus'" by H. J. Nowarra (Luftfarht-Archiv, Berlin) and Kimbrough S. Brown (Lt. Col. USAF)?

If you don't, I suggest you get one. When you've got it in hand, drop me a PM and I'll be back.

Cheerio!

[Signals]

2ndcmr, no don't have the book, so instead of myself doing the same and asking you to pursue a book from 1959 and clearly difficult to obtain, here is only a vey small portion from the AIF in France, Official History on Australia in WW1. This volume has many eyewitness accounts of what happened that day from men on the spot. So how about posting your theories on Brown's immaculate kill straight from the book in your possession. If you like i can post the countless other eyewittnesses if you like. The last entry I have put on here is hard to explain isn't it, a British artillery officer who could not back up Brown's claim, I guess it would be hard when Brown was not there when Richthoven was fatally wounded and crashed.

The Conclusions reached by Captain Bean after interviewing countless of British and Australian men on the ground is as follows, it will be seen that Ricthoven, before reaching Vaux, was dived on by Brown, who thought that he killed him; that Captain Brown immediate report that Richthoven, "went down vertical" was mistaken, and shows that Brown saw nothing of the chase that followed; that Richthoven actually went on chasing Lt. May for almost exactly a mile, attempting to follow his maneuvers and firing burst from his machine guns; that on rising to cross the ridge and coming into presence of the numerous batteries beyond it, and under close fire from rifles and machine guns , he for some reason abandoned the chase and suddenly served eastwards and after quickly rising several hundred feet, swerved northwards again and crashed; and that apparently none of the observers who saw the pursuit after it approached Vaux knew of a third plane being involved in it. It is also clear that Sergeant Popkin's gun, when first fired, and those of the 53rd Battery can not have sent the fatal shot-since it came almost directly from the right and below the aviator-although they may have well caused him to turn; but the scores of other men were firing and, when Richthoven banked and turned back, Sergeant Popkin, (who now opened again), was in position to fire just a shot as killed Richthoven. (Private F.R.Weston who helped Popkin, wrote, on the day of the event that the previous burst "did some damage,"but the second burst "was fatal." This was when Popkin himself according to his statement also made at the time, "observed at once that my fire took effect."

It is just conceivable that Richthoven might have contorted his body in such a way that Captain Brown, though above and behind him, could have inflicted such as that described; but it is surely inconceivable that, with such a wound in the region of the heart, he should have continued for a mile intensely purposive flight, closely following the movements of the fugitive airman and endeavoring to shoot him. Certainly no one who watched from the ground the last minute of the exciting chase with only 2 planes in the picture will ever believe that Richthoven was killed by a shot from a third aeroplane which no one from Vaux onwards observed.

A British artillery officer, (P. Hutton), wrote to the Daily Mail in 1935; "As anti Aircraft leader on the spot I claim to be in the best position to judge.....Later in the day the Airforce came to me for confirmation of their claim which was then the rule, but I could not substantiate it.

[Auimfo]

Well, I dunno who thinks what here but all the most recent re-evaluations, reassessments and studies have been pretty conclusive that there was almost no chance it was Brown and that the shot came from the ground - the most likely being Cedric Popkin.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Capt_Starlight]

Here is a very good of the "state of play" on the medical evidence of what killed Richtofen

=> http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/richt.htm.

Geoffrey Miller is a former GP living in Sydney. His work was used in Peter Kilduff's book though am unsure of its use in Frank's or Nowarra's books (though if they came to similar conclusions they may well have used it at least subliminally).

[Signals]

Thanks Captain Starlight, with Brown being awared the kill when there was alternative evidence and eyewittness accounts, then Popkin should have a case to gain an award now, he clearly has stronger evidence. I remember reading a newspaper article where his daughter said that he always said he knew he was the one that got him. It seems to me Brown got the credit as that is how the RFC wanted it. He certainly did not want to go too deeply into it when Bean wrote to him did he.

With hundreds of eyewittnesses on the ground, one thing is certain, Brown was not there in position to fire the fatal shot. Well 2ndcmr, over to you and your theories.

DB

[Gheluvelt]

Did anybody see the documentary a few months ago, where a team recreated the ground positions and the flight path of von Richtofen? They fired adapted Lewis guns at a target flown at the same hight, speed time of day etc., and managed hardly any "hits". Not sure whether this was only shown in the UK, but was very interesting.

The conclusion was that it was most likely to have been Popkin, due to him being in the position to have made the shot, after measuring distance, trajectory etc. If I can dig out some more info, I'll post it.

Regards,

Mike

[Beery]

I've read all the latest stuff. The evidence seems to point to Cedric Popkin, although no one will ever know for sure. After all, anyone with a rifle or machine gun was shooting at that plane. As it happens, my grandad was in the area at the time, so I sometimes like to think it was possibly him, hehe.

[Auimfo]

I saw the same documentary Mike. For the life of me can't remember who made it or what it was called but is was fascinating and almost certainly ruled Brown out of the equation.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[Southside Bucky]

...do you have a copy of "Von Richthofen and the 'Flying Circus'" by H. J. Nowarra (Luftfarht-Archiv, Berlin) and Kimbrough S. Brown (Lt. Col. USAF)?...

Hi, 2ndCMR.

I have this book. May I ask what section of it you were going to bring to Darren's attention?

I have no axe to grind on the "Who Killed the Red Baron" controversy...Just interested, that's all.

Thanks.

Bucky

[fitzee]

This is it...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/redbaron/

Fitzee

[Signals]

Hi Bucky,

i guess you'll be looking for something that goes against what this thread is saying as here is his comment to me. So something that proves it was Brown with on the spot eyewitness from primary sources.

DB.

Your comments about Roy Brown are completely at odds with the facts by the way. I suggest you look into the matter a little further.

[Gunner Bailey]

I think the probability was that an Australian machine gun crew were the most likely people to have shot down the Red Baron, but it has always puzzled me why there were no reports of multiple hits on the aircraft. If it was just a single round that hit the Triplane and the pilot, it could have come from the many soldiers firing their SMLEs at the plane. Can anyone confirm other hits on the plane?

John

[2ndCMR]

Hi, 2ndCMR.

I have this book. May I ask what section of it you were going to bring to Darren's attention?

I have no axe to grind on the "Who Killed the Red Baron" controversy...Just interested, that's all.

Thanks.

Bucky

I haven't made a study of Richtofen or his demise, a much over-rated pilot and matter as far as I'm concerned. Our time would be much better spent discussing our own pilots who routinely flew over enemy lines, unlike most of the German pilots, and who didn't fly around with large groups to cover their backs while they picked off the easiest targets.

However, I was impressed by Chapter 25 of that book and the case it made for Franklyn as the likely, or at least principal, ground gunner who brought Richtofen down.

The fuss made over his funeral was ridiculous, but of course his personality was not well known at that time, and various fanciful illusions were created by romantic minds who naturally wished to believe that their enemies shared their sensibilities.

[Beery]

Can anyone confirm other hits on the plane?

Within hours, the triplane was stripped of pretty much all of its fabric by soldiers who were grabbing any memento they could get from it. As a result, unless a round hit part of the airframe that was left, probably the only bullet they could show hit the plane was the one that killed von Richthofen.

[David B]

In the book The Red Barons Last Flight it is stated on page 140 that Sgt Franklyn was in charge of a section of a 13 pdr

aa battery, with no mention of whether he had access to machinegun/rifle fire. As the Baron was shot with a 303 bullet

it would appear that Franklyns claim could be dismissed.

As to the fact that there was only one bullet infolved, i.e. no other bullet holes were found on (what was left of anyway)

his aircraft I would think that it was a lucky shot, maybe the other bullets of the burst either went under or over the cockpit

or it could have been the last shot in a burst that was the culprit.

Whatever, it removed a long standing scourge of the allied airforces from further damage

David

[Beery]

I haven't made a study of Richtofen or his demise, a much over-rated pilot and matter as far as I'm concerned. Our time would be much better spent discussing our own pilots who routinely flew over enemy lines, unlike most of the German pilots, and who didn't fly around with large groups to cover their backs while they picked off the easiest targets.

...The fuss made over his funeral was ridiculous, but of course his personality was not well known at that time, and various fanciful illusions were created by romantic minds who naturally wished to believe that their enemies shared their sensibilities.

Every pilot who was successful in WWI air combat used every trick in the book to increase his chances of surviving and downing opponents. In insinuating that Entente pilots flew by some sort of higher moral code, you seem to be falling prey to the same romantic illusions that you accuse von Richthofen's contemporaries of having. In WWI air combat the goal of all combatants was to down as many enemy aircraft as possible using whatever legal means at their disposal - including trying to kill the pilot. In the air there was little chivalry on either side. However, when the battle was over, von Richthofen showed as much chivalry as any Entente pilot - when he did down an enemy plane, von Richthofen often invited surviving pilots for drinks at his aerodrome.

As for the idea that Entente pilots were braver for taking the fight into the enemy's airspace, bravery had nothing to do with it. This was the strategy used by the generals on each side. The German commanders preferred to use the prevailing winds to their advantage, while the British and French commanders preferred to seek air superiority over enemy territory in an effort to gain an advantage. Besides, a pilot who was shot down and killed in his own territory was just as dead as a pilot who was killed in enemy territory, and a British or French pilot who survived being shot down over enemy territory was probably better-off in a POW camp than a German pilot who survived a crash in friendly territory and took to the skies again the next day. There are two sides to the coin, and in this case German pilots were just as brave as Entente pilots on this score.

I very much doubt that von Richthofen was any more or less callous than similarly successful (or murderous) Entente pilots like Mannock and Fonck. Pilots on all sides were trying to do their duty, and that duty was to kill, and in the grand scheme of things fighter pilots were much less deadly than machine gunners who mowed down hundreds of soldiers, or bomber pilots whose bombs killed hundreds, or artillerymen whose shells killed hundreds, or the generals who orchestrated the deaths of millions. But however many they killed, the combatants of all sides had similar hopes and dreams, similar families who cared about them, and too few were lucky enough to survive the war.

[dekenai]

G'DAY ALL,

Two things are clear;

1. There was no proper autopsy

2. The triplane was savaged for souvenirs hence all the bullet evidence erased.

Peter Hart in his book 'Aces Falling' gives a nice summary. Basically if Brown hit the Baron, then he continued to fly on for some distance, so was the hit instantly fatal?

The two machine gunners, Popkin and then Buie, from there statements make it hard to see 'how' Ritchthofen was fatally hit. Popkin seems to have the hand over Buie and Brown, so yes a lucky shot from a SMLE by soldier X on the ground is equally feasible.

RDC

[Signals]

Hi All,

surely what the autopsy did reveal was that there was an entry and exit wound, and that the bullet hit a rib as well. Fatal or not fatal, in the position it was in it is hard to believe that he could have continued on with such a chase after Brown had departed the scene. You have to read the eyewitness accounts of that last mile of the chase to see a wounded man with a hit like that could not have kept going. With a hit like that he would have certainly known about it, as it certainly was no graze.

Private F.R.Weston who helped Popkin, wrote, on the day of the event that the previous burst "did some damage,"but the second burst "was fatal." This was when Popkin himself according to his statement also made at the time, "observed at once that my fire took effect."

For Brown's supposed hit to take effect so long after the event, and at the same time in which Popkin claimed the above seem fanciful. So at the end of the day, no matter what happened it was not Brown, and it would seem by his statements to Bean after the war, he knew only to well this was the truth.

2ndcmr, i fail to see how people can be wasting their time when reseaching pilots from Germany. How you you possibily get a balance view of events when you only look at your own achives. I always get both when doing my research. We are not still fighting the war, only researching certain aspects of it and sometimes it is a shame that people from other coutires don't use this site, as information from their relatives during the war would add another dimention.I haven't made a study of Richtofen or his demise, a much over-rated pilot and matter as far as I'm concerned. So how can you come to this conclusion without even studying the man! Getting flustered? Not me anyway; I’m having lots fun! Before jumping into the deep end of the rhetorical pool old chap, why not practice a little at the shallow end first... Your words not mine.

[dekenai]

g'day Darren,

In what l have read there was no autopsy. They inspected the body externally.

I agree with your sentiments however. I think with Cecil's first burst he hit the left side of the acft, M.v.R was hit from the right, thus it could have been his second burst as M.v.R turned--or as Peter Hart says, "--even a stray bullet". Remember his body was not riddled with bullets. Will we ever know?

It is fitting to read about the German Air Service, as it is about the French Air Service, etc

cheers

RDC

[2ndCMR]

Every pilot who was successful in WWI air combat used every trick in the book to increase his chances of surviving and downing opponents. In insinuating that Entente pilots flew by some sort of higher moral code, you seem to be falling prey to the same romantic illusions that you accuse von Richthofen's contemporaries of having. In WWI air combat the goal of all combatants was to down as many enemy aircraft as possible using whatever legal means at their disposal - including trying to kill the pilot. In the air there was little chivalry on either side. However, when the battle was over, von Richthofen showed as much chivalry as any Entente pilot - when he did down an enemy plane, von Richthofen often invited surviving pilots for drinks at his aerodrome.

As for the idea that Entente pilots were braver for taking the fight into the enemy's airspace, bravery had nothing to do with it. This was the strategy used by the generals on each side. The German commanders preferred to use the prevailing winds to their advantage, while the British and French commanders preferred to seek air superiority over enemy territory in an effort to gain an advantage. Besides, a pilot who was shot down and killed in his own territory was just as dead as a pilot who was killed in enemy territory, and a British or French pilot who survived being shot down over enemy territory was probably better-off in a POW camp than a German pilot who survived a crash in friendly territory and took to the skies again the next day. There are two sides to the coin, and in this case German pilots were just as brave as Entente pilots on this score.

I very much doubt that von Richthofen was any more or less callous than similarly successful (or murderous) Entente pilots like Mannock and Fonck. Pilots on all sides were trying to do their duty, and that duty was to kill, and in the grand scheme of things fighter pilots were much less deadly than machine gunners who mowed down hundreds of soldiers, or bomber pilots whose bombs killed hundreds, or artillerymen whose shells killed hundreds, or the generals who orchestrated the deaths of millions. But however many they killed, the combatants of all sides had similar hopes and dreams, similar families who cared about them, and too few were lucky enough to survive the war.

Yes, I can see how you might think I am romanticising "our pilots"...but no, I'm not. It seems to be a matter of cultural differences. On the German side, combat was more matter of cold calculation and no disgrace seems to have attached to avoiding combat when the odds were not overwhelmingly favourable. On the RFC/RNAS side, "mixing it up" regardless of the odds was thought admirable, rather than foolhardy. Of course there were exceptions on both sides, but my impression is this comes out pretty clearly as an overall trend in the accounts of actions that survive. The romanticising of Richtofen seems to be even more of a post-WWI phenomenon actually. As for killing, I don't think anyone pretends this was not the object on both sides equally, though some pilots clearly preferred not to do so, if they could avoid it. Richtofen's attitude to the matter with his lttle silver cups etc. always seemed rather sick to me, but knowing something of his cultural/historical context, not surprising.

I'm not clear on your second paragraph. Are you saying it was against general orders for German pilots to cross the lines except on observation/photography missions? I'm afraid I can't agree that it took no more bravery to cross into enemy airspace and fight there than it did to stay in one's own airspace with the support from the air and ground that gave. I think we all know which mission we'd prefer...

Now Darren, getting back to your original assertions about Roy Brown in the other thread, "...lets look at Brown shall we, a Canadian that kept his opportunistic lie going till the end." I think this sums it up pretty well: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no1/who-qui-eng.asp

While I haven't seen the program referenced in that article, I'm more impressed by the research conducted by Nowarra and Brown who were working when many of the principals were still alive to be interviewed. That article contains this statement: "Although Captain Brown was credited with this victory, it is on record that when interviewed on more than one occassion in later years, this gallant officer, who died in Ontario in 1944, never did claim categorically that it was he who shot down and killed von Richthofen..." (italics in the original)

As those authors wisely concluded: "We are, therefore, left to consider the relative merits of the claims of Buie and Franklyn. In his published claim [published in the Dec. '59 issue of the American "men's magazine" Cavalier], Buie gives a clear, and to my mind, honest and fair description of how he claims to have shot down von Richthofen's Triplane. But, in addition to him, and indeed to Sergeant Franklyn, it is an undisputed fact that a number of other men were firing Lewis guns set up for anti-aircraft purposes. Also, men in the trenches were firing with rifles from a number of points along the route taken by May and von Richthofen. Any one of these men could claim that it was he who fired the fatal shot. But no individual man could prove that it was he who did so." (italics in the original)

This chapter goes on to assert that neither Buie nor Evans could have fired the fatal shot (assuming that shot was the one that entered Richthofen's body from the lower right and exited on the upper left of his torso.) as they were 'on the wrong side' of his flight path as the author's re-created it, whereas Franklyn was stationed within 200 yards of where R. crashed. There were several Australian witnesses to Franklyn's shooting. B.Q.M.S. Franklyn R.G.A. was also a trained range-finder and aircraft spotter, as his original service documents showed. Franklyn did not leave his position but sent a man over to the crash site who returned with a piece of the fabric of R.'s plane which Franklyn retained.

Even if the bullet found in R.'s clothes at post mortem had been retained, the science of forensic ballistics was then in it's infancy and no one was going to take the time to try to figure out which Lewis gun it came from, or even if it was the fatal bullet!